Bee, District Judge . . . The principal points for the decision
of the court appear to be: 1st. Whether this court has
any and what jurisdiction relative to matters arising on the
high seas. 2dly. Whether the 17th article of the treaty with
France restrain such jurisdiction; or whether the act of the
5th of June last controls it. By the third section of the judiciary
act of congress [1 Stat. 73] it is declared that there
shall be a district court in each district to consist of one
judge, who shall hold four sessions annually, and special
courts at his discretion. By the ninth section, the powers
of the district courts are expressed, 1st, as to criminal, 2d,
as to civil causes. The court shall have exclusive original
cognizance in all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;
and concurrent jurisdiction with the courts of
the several states, or the circuit courts of the United States
(as the case may be) where an alien sues for a tort only in
violation of the law of nations, or a treaty of the United
States. By the 2d section of the 3d article of the constitution
of the United States, it is declared, that the judicial
power of the United States shall extend to all cases arising
under the constitution and laws of the United States, and
treaties made, or to be made. To all cases affecting ambassadors,
other public ministers and consuls, and to all cases
of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. In all cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and
those in which a state shall be a party, the supreme court
shall have original jurisdiction; in all other cases, appellate
jurisdiction under such regulations as congress shall make.
The circuit court has no original jurisdiction; but has appellate
jurisdiction in causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;
in which the district court alone has original jurisdiction.
Redress must be had there, or nowhere. Suitors,
however injured, would look in vain to the laws of this
country for redress. They would be stopped in limine, and
the appellate jurisdiction of the circuit and of the supreme
courts would be virtually annihilated; since there would be
no terminus à quo, no fixed point from which they might
commence their procedure.

In addition to the clauses already recited from the judiciary
act, the judges of the supreme court have by their
decree in Glass v. The Betsey, 3 Dall. [3 U. S.] 6, decided
that the several district courts throughout the United
States possess all the powers of courts of admiralty,
whether considered as instance or prize courts. That case
was elaborately argued, and with great ability. The judges
of the supreme court held it under advisement for some
days, and then decided it so fully as to leave the jurisdiction
of this court no longer doubtful. The question was
considered as well with respect to the law of nations, as to
the 17th article of the treaty with France; and, was fully
set at rest on both grounds. But it is said that the act of
congress of June, 1794 [1 Stat. 384], by declaring that the
district courts shall take cognizance of complaints, by
whomsoever instituted, in cases of captures made within
the waters of the United States or within a marine league
of the coasts or shores thereof, intended to oust them of
all other jurisdiction. But the argument has no sort of
force. Glass's Case [supra], had established the jurisdiction
of the court in cases of neutral or American property captured
on the high seas and brought infra praesidia of our
courts. It was there determined that, under such circumstances,
the American citizen, or neutral, might institute
his suit in the district court, and obtain redress from it.
But the act of congress now relied on goes farther, and
enacts that, if our jurisdictional limits are violated, restitution
shall be made even to a party belligerent who shall
complain to the court, and prove his case to come within
the provisions of that act. The sixth and seventh articles of
the treaty with France assert and recognize the same right.
Holland, Prussia, and Sweden have done so by their several
treaties with us. No state could maintain its peace or
sovereignty, if it were otherwise. I have no hesitation,
therefore, in pronouncing that the district court has full
jurisdiction upon the present occasion.